godot_orient

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, bounded, and live, and transparently explains that partial component failures are labeled rather than hidden. This goes beyond minimal disclosure and sets accurate expectations for a non-mutating snapshot.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: the first states the core purpose and nature, the second enumerates the snapshot components and error handling. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite the tool's complexity, the description covers all key aspects: what is returned, the bounded/depth-limited nature, conditional git summary, and failure labeling. An output schema exists, so not explaining return format is acceptable. The description is complete for orienting an agent to the tool's purpose and capabilities.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters have detailed schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains the params. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, but given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly defines the tool as an orientation snapshot for Godot work, listing the exact components it returns (pinned session/project, editor readiness, scene hierarchy, selection, errors/warnings, git summary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scene_get_hierarchy or logs_read, which focus on narrower scopes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Orient before Godot work' gives clear usage context as the initial tool to invoke before more specific operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the composite snapshot nature implies it serves as a broad overview while siblings provide targeted actions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.